Did Pacquiao beat a prime Barrera?

[fanofslug]

I don't mean age wise prime, but by the time Barrera faced Pacquiao he'd been in some hellacious wars and seemed like he was just going through the motions. The Barrera that beat Hamed and Morales was something altogether different and don't tell me that it was only 2 years, it's an awful lot in Barrera years...he didn't coast and fought the best. I believe the zen version or the mad max version of Barrera pre-2003 would have starched Pacquiao, and I'm a Pacquiao fan.

[IMDAZED]

Excellent, great win even IF Barrera was slightly past it. So what? Great win.

[BrometheusBob.]

I think if he had fought Pacquiao like he fought Morales in the first fight, it would have been a war that I would favor Pacquiao in. The best chance he had was to fight the way he fought Hamed, which it seemed he tried to do but could not pull off that night.

He wasn't in his absolute physical prime, but he was only 2 years removed from his career best win and had some good wins follow that fight (like Morales III). Definitely my pick for the best win of Pacquiao's career.

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

sorry no version of MAB would have beat Pacquaio. Styles make fights and no style that MAB ever fought in could have eluded that ass whooping Pacquaio had instore for his bitchass.

[IronDanHamza]

Arguably.

Perhaps slightly past his peak.

Still a great win though.

[-Kev-]

2003? Absolutely, at least very close, he was the champion at FW. The guys he beat afterward were all top 10 guys except Ayala, that was just a comeback fight against a very tough opponent who had gone the distance in his last 10 fights, MAB stopped him. Morales, Fana, Peden, Juarez were all top 10. Morales was top 5 at SFW when MAB beat him. It's no coincidence that MAB was champ at 126, lost to Pac, and then ended up as #1 rated by The Ring at 130 in 2004. 2005 it was the same, he was still #1 at 130. 2006 he became #2 behind Pac cause Pac had a better year. 2007 he lost to JMM. So yeah, I don't think in 2003 MAB was quite past it yet considering what he did afterward.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Barrera was at the peak of his powers,,, he had just undressed undefeated prince and morales...

Barrera was at his peak in terms of athletic ability meets up with smarts n experience

[IronDanHamza]

Barrera was at the peak of his powers,,, he had just undressed undefeated prince and morales...

Barrera was at his peak in terms of athletic ability meets up with smarts n experience

Meh, wouldn't say "just". He beat Hamed 2 years prior.

And he "beat" Morales a year prior but most people felt he lost.

I think athletically he defintely wasn't at his peak, but skill wise he was. You could argue that the combination of being slightly past it physically but still close to his best combined with his vast improvements technically and skill wise that he was at his peak. Still arguable though.

IMO Barrera looked better in 2001 than he did in 2003.

[NUCLEAR]

Barerra was 29 years old. When pacquiao fought him.

Barrera was simpy outgunned and outfought in that fight even if its 5 years earlier i still favor pacquiao due to so much speed.

[IronDanHamza]

Barerra was 29 years old. When pacquiao fought him.

Barrera was simpy outgunned and outfought in that fight even if its 5 years earlier i still favor pacquiao due to so much speed.

Erik Morales was 29 when he lost to Zahir Raheem. Hard to argue he wasn't well beyond his best days at that point.

Age is just a number.

Not saying Barrera definitely wasn't at his peak but just because he was 29 doesn't mean he couldn't have been past his peak.